From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: William Morriss <wjmelements@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Ben Kloester <benkloester@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Idea: Marginal Pricing
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:03:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61fa604f-29c8-c1f2-fc49-45a5e8263bfa@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADpM8jq_-JxCmLiCPMG2ZVuYxZH7KOCyyMaQnBay18PQLPvmRg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3232 bytes --]
On 11/29/2017 10:13 PM, William Morriss via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Ben Kloester <benkloester@gmail•com
> <mailto:benkloester@gmail•com>> wrote:
>
> Something similar to this has been proposed in this article by Ron
> Lavi, Or Sattath, and Aviv Zohar, and discussed in this bitcoin-dev
> thread https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September/015093.html
>
> They only discussed changing the fee structure, not removing the
> block size limit, as far as I know.
>
> "Redesigning Bitcoin's fee market"
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881>
>
> *Ben Kloester*
>
> Thanks. Marginal pricing is equivalent to the "Monopolistic Price
> Mechanism" discussed in https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08881
> The mechanism is the same, including
> the block size adjustment, but as you noted the prior discussion only
> concerns the fee structure.
>
> It looks like the prior proposal broke down because of Peter Todd's
> concern with out-of-band payments
> (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September/015103.html).
> Restated, miners can circumvent the system through out of band payments.
> Mark Friedenbach argues that out-of-band payments are penalized in part
> because the end-user could have just as easily bid higher instead of
> paying OOB. Peter Todd argues that a miner could mine only out-of-band
> transactions. Such transactions could have no on-chain fees and thus be
> disregarded by other miners.
>
> I believe this OOB scenario is imaginary. Either it would be more
> profitable for a miner to mine fairly, or cheaper for the end-user to
> pay the fee in-band.
> Consider MINFEE to the the effective fee paid for
> the block mined by the OOB-incentivized miner. Consider MARKFEE to the
> the market fee collected by non-OOB-incentivized miners. Call the OOB
> effective tx fee OOB. Then,
> For a user to prefer OOB: MINFEE+OOB<MARKFEE
> For a miner to prefer OOB: MINFEE+OOB>MARKFEE
> It is impossible for both scenarios to be true. As previously argued by
> Mark Friedenbach, the system disincentivizes OOB tx fees.
Bitcoin is neutral on how miners are paid. The benefit of on-chain fee
payment is that a fee can be paid with no communication between the
miner and the merchant, preserving anonymity. It also serves as a
convenience that anonymous fees are published, as it provides a basis
for anonymous fee estimation. There is no centralization pressure that
arises from side fees.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Side-Fee-Fallacy
> I don't think there is any more centralization pressure with marginal
> fees than before. What prevents miners from colluding to move tx fees
> OOB is the value of the on-band pending tx fees. The hashpower of
> individual miners is not impressive compared to the entire network, so
> individual miners could not offer a service to speed up confirmation
> that would be superior to simply doing a RBP. OOB fees are perhaps a
> symptom of the current setup, wherein there is no penalty for
> arbitrarily favoring individual transactions with lower fees.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-30 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-30 0:47 William Morriss
2017-11-30 2:38 ` Ben Kloester
2017-11-30 6:13 ` William Morriss
2017-11-30 11:40 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-11-30 12:03 ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2017-11-30 9:37 ` Federico Tenga
2017-11-30 5:52 ` Chenxi Cai
2017-11-30 6:05 ` William Morriss
[not found] ` <CY4PR1201MB0197936CBE467B38DCC26DC986380@CY4PR1201MB0197.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
2017-11-30 16:15 ` Chenxi Cai
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgS5jiNCmdwEt3YtZMJ0SfhC8Hw1eXr_0Vo5AQhYv7bJfg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-11-30 9:12 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-12-01 7:58 ` Ryan J Martin
2017-12-02 3:55 ` Damian Williamson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=61fa604f-29c8-c1f2-fc49-45a5e8263bfa@voskuil.org \
--to=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=benkloester@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=wjmelements@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox